Along with what BTK observed above, I found it interesting that during the recently concluded oral arguments regarding the appeal by several states to overturn the ObamaCare bill, one of the justices commented, "...you don't expect us to read all 2,700 pages of this bill, do you?"

Court watchers have opined that none of the justices has either the knowledge or the inclination to consider either the financial implications, the impact on the healthcare industry, or the well-being of the U.S. population in making their decision. Their role, as described by Court watchers, is to adjudicate the appropriateness of lower court decisions, based on the law. And to adjudicate lower court decisions based on the constitutionality of the issues being argued. What they don't do is issue judgements based on reason or fairness or the effect on people.

So what do we have here? One of the most important pieces of legislation in decades was cobbled together from language drafted by partisan politicians and a variety of special interest lobbyists, passed by Congress, almost all of whom admitted voting on it without reading its contents. Now the legality of the bill will be determined by a Supreme Court who also admits that they will not read the bill in its entirety, and who almost certainly wouldn't understand the implications of the legislation even if they did.

Do you really think this is what the framers of the Consitution had in mind when they created our system of government? How do we get out of this mess?